Please help me understand where the missing comma is supposed to be in:

> their Membership Committee has decided to eject from membership all Collabora staff and partners over thirty people who ...

Is it:

1) "eject from membership all Collabora staff and partners, over thirty people ..."

2) "eject from membership all Collabora staff and partners over thirty, people who ..."

:-?

Edit: that's from the article this post leads to: <https://www.collaboraonline.com/blog/tdf-ejects-its-core-dev...>

(Downvoted for asking for legitimate clarification? Seriously? Age discrimination _is_ a real thing, so there's no way of knowing, for lack of a comma, which interpretation was intended.)

▲

chuckadams 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

When it comes to a governing board that's interested in all the intimate details of an office software suite, I strongly suspect you're not going to find anyone under 30.

▲

elphinstone 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Has to be #1, as the blog makes no mention of age restrictions. Ejecting people for being over 30 would be unheard of outside of Logan's Run! (vintage scifi movie)

▲

kstrauser 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I read that as they’re ejecting all but 30 people.

▲

sgbeal 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> I read that as they’re ejecting all but 30 people.

i had to re-read the original sentence several times to figure out how you came to that conclusion but can see it now: "all people over/above/beyond [a limit of] 30..."

	▲	kstrauser 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's really hard to parse and I'm just guessing at what it means. Now when I glance at it again, I read it like: > their Membership Committee has decided to eject from membership all Collabora staff and partners (over thirty people) who... I don't know if that's correct, either.